Scroll to Scroll:

Todays Parsha #26: Shemini (On the 8th day)

Special Note: On the first video I made a reference to a helpful edition of

Rashi I was using and said I would show it but for whatever reason forgot to.
So please let me correct that oversight and give you the link and a picture of
what I was talking about. However, this link contains pricing information so
I suggest you do NOT click on it during Shabbat.

http://artscroll.com/Books/9781578191147.html

PART 1: THE LAST AND CURRENT TORAH PORTIONS

ANSWERS TO STUDY QUESTIONS FROM LAST WEEK (Tzav)
1) How do some recent events and the book of Romans itself, part of which was our NT
portion, combine to threaten some key tenets of the Roman Catholic faith?
A few years ago we witnessed the resignation of one pope and the installation of his
replacement. The papacy of course derives its authority as coming from the apostle Keefa
or Peter. The story is that Peter ministered in Rome shortly before his being crucified
upside down, dismembered and having his body parts buried in the fill of some Roman
stairs. Of course, for Peter to have been the first pope, the church would have to prove he
went to Rome in the first place and, unfortunately for them, the evidence that such
happened is scant to non-existent. In fact, archaeology in Israel seems to prove that Peter
died in Jerusalem after returning from decades of ministry success in the Middle East,

1|Page

including Babylon (1 Peter 5:13, Galatians 2:7-10). You can find out more about Peters
Tomb here: http://www.biblelight.net/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm
But to really answer this question, lets get back to the NT itself. The NT tells us clearly
that, considering Peter and Paul, it was Paul who had the strong presence in Rome. It
was Paul, not Peter, who was a Roman citizen (Acts 22:28) who could travel freely to the
Italian capital back and forth at a time when Jews were expelled from that same place
(Acts 18:2), so Peter would not have been welcome there. It was Paul and not Peter that
wrote 2 letters at least to these same people (Romans, Philemon) and it was Paul and not
Peter that we know with 100% certainty was even imprisoned in Rome towards the end
of his life (Acts 24 and 28)!
And I wish you to know, my brothers, that I have many times wanted to come to you,
but was prevented up until now, that I might bear some fruit among you also; even as
among other Gentiles, Greeks and barbarians, the wise and the unwise: for to every
man I am required to preach. And so, I am eager to preach to you also who are at
Rome. (Romans 1:13-15 AENT)
And finally Catholic tradition not only has Peter as their first pope, they assign his papacy
to a 25 year reign, from 41 to 66 CE. This is clearly contradicting events in the book of
Acts:
And at that time some were laying on hands to those who were in the congregation.
But then, (in order to) harm them, (there was) Herodus the king, also known as
Agripus. And he killed Ya'akov the brother of Yochanan with a sword. And when he
saw this pleased the Yehudeans he was proceeding to capture Shimon Keefa also.
And these were the days of Unleavened Bread. (Act 12:1-3 AENT)
Now after Herodus sought him and could not find him, he judged the guards and
commanded them that they should die and he departed from Yehud and was in
Caesarea. And because he was angry at the Tyrians and at the Sidonians, they
gathered and came to him as one and persuaded Blastus, the chamberlain of the king,
and asked of him that they might have cultivated land, because the provision of their
country was from the kingdom of Herodus. Now on a notable day, Herodus was
dressed in the clothing of the kingdom. And he sat upon the judgment seat and
was speaking with the crowds. And all the people were crying out and saying,
"These sayings are of Elohim and are not of the sons of men!" And because he
did not give glory to Elohim, at that moment the Messenger of Master YHWH
struck him, and he swarmed with worms and died! (Act 12:19-23 AENT)
The same event is recorded by the historian Josephus1 here:
Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea (44 CEAGR) he
came to the city of Caesarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower; and there he
1

In Antiquities 17:268-270, Josephus records a very similar death with worms happening to Antipas
father, Herod the Great, and for the same reasons, great impiety.

2|Page

held shows in honor of Caesar, upon his being informed that there was a certain
festival celebrated to make vows for his safety. At which festival a great multitude
was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity through his
province.
On the second day of these shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a
texture truly wonderful, and came into the theatre early in the morning; at which time
the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun's rays
upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a
horror over those who looked intently upon him: and presently his flatterers cried
out, one from one place, and another from another, (though not for his good)
that he was a god; and they added, ``Be merciful to us; for although we have hereto
reverenced you only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own you as superior to mortal
nature2.''
Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. But, as
he presently afterward looked up, he saw an owl {a} sitting on a certain rope over his
head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it
had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow.
A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner.
He therefore looked upon his friends, and said, ``I, whom you call a god, am
commanded presently to depart this life; while Providence thus reproves the lying
words you just now said to me; and I, who was by you called immortal, am
immediately to be hurried away by death. But I am bound to accept what Providence
allots, as it pleases God: for we have by no means lived ill, but in a splendid and
happy manner.''
When he said this, his pain was become violent. Accordingly, he was carried into the
palace; and when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he
departed this life, being in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year of
his reign. (Antiquities 19:343-350)
The overriding point of course in this case is that from 30-44 CE, the book of Acts puts Peter
squarely within Israels borders, and later references like 1 Peter 5:13 put Peter in Babylon.
In both cases, Peter is many hundreds of miles away from Rome during most, if not all, of
the time Catholic tradition ascribes to his alleged papacy.
2) If we could go back in time to the middle of the first century when Paul traveled
there, what would be the most surprising thing we would see about this original
Roman assembly of believers when compared to Catholic tradition about their
own origins?
2

In an interesting historical twist, the Talmud would appear to paint a totally different picture of Agrippas
reign. In one place it records Agrippa weeping at the commandment in Deuteronomy that Israel shall not let
a foreigner (the Herodians were half Arab or Edomite) rule over hem. The Rabbis reassure the sobbing
king saying, Dont worry Agrippa! You are our brother!

3|Page

While there is no question the overall majority of the population in Rome was pagan,
for the small group of rebels Paul is addressing, they were Torah observant. Such
is evident not just in Hebraic expressions like good and acceptable sacrifices but
interestingly enough from the words of Constantine himself. In the famous Edict of
Milan, Constantine forbad Torah observance throughout his Empire and was targeting
specifically Christians. This proves many of them were observing Torah then, or
there would be no need for Constantine to ban what they were doing. One need only
consider the centurion Cornelius who built a synagogue and was learning Torah in
synagogue alongside the Jewish believers.
3) What does the prophet Yiremeyahu (Jeremiah) have in common with a major debate
recorded in the Book of Acts?
Jeremiah, though not in the portion of him that we read today, came to the same
conclusion about circumcision that the elders did in Acts 15
24

'Look, the days are coming, Yahweh declares, when I shall punish all who are
circumcised only in the flesh: 25 Egypt, Judah, Edom, the Ammonites, Moab, and
all the men with shaven temples who live in the desert. For all those nations, and
the whole House of Israel too, are uncircumcised at heart.' (Jeremiah 9:24-25
NJB)
In other words, circumcising because its your culture isnt good enough. Egypt and
Moab do that, but are still wicked pagans. It is only when we do circumcision after
Torah study and understanding it as a command from YHWH that it is acceptable.
That is why Paul argued for and won with the idea of the Gentiles not being counted
as saved only upon circumcision, but to study first and then do it when convicted
by the Ruach.
4) Where in this Torah portion do we see a veiled reference to Yshuas arrest?
(Leviticus 8:23) = He slaughtered it, and Moses took some of its blood and
placed it on Aaron's right ear lobe, on his right thumb, and on his right big toe.
Remember also that Peter cut off the right ear of MALKA (name means KING) the
servant of the High Priest. This may be a veiled threat to the sons of Aaron giving
way to Yshua as high priest.
5) Where in this Torah portion do we get a detail that helps solve a so-called
discrepancy in the nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke?
KOL ZACHAR (6:11) = every male. This term covers of course males of all ages.
The same is used with respect to circumcision. While the Torah enjoins infants at 8
days old get circumcised, it also makes allowances for the fact that others come to
faith later in lifelike Abraham getting circumcised at age 99 for exampleso
4|Page

males covers that. It may also explain something with respect to the Gospel texts
describing Yshua as an infant and as a child in varying Nativity accounts. The
word ZAKAR (and its Aramaic equivalent TALIA) covers both and the one time a
baby is considered a man (in a broader sense) is when he has been circumcised.
What this means in my chronology is that the shepherds came BEFORE Yshua was
circumcised and the Magi came AFTER this, thus explaining Yshua being called by
the other term.
AND NOW FOR THIS WEEKS PORTION
1) Meaning of this weeks Torah portion and summary of contents:
Shemini means on the 8th day deals with the end of the priests consecration period.
After this, they can then make expiation for all of Israel. Unfortunately however, two of
Aarons sons pay the ultimate price for not ministering properly to the people. The
portion then ends with the kosher list of what can and cannot be eaten, a perfect segue
into our Renewed Covenant reading which also discusses kosher food.
2) Read Parsha (English-Leviticus 9:1-11:47). This week, we will read the entire
portion together.
3) Play by Play commentary where appropriate.
4) Point out key Hebrew words/terms. Color Commentary:

VAYEHI BAYOM HASHMINI HARA MOSHE LE-AHARON ULEVANAV

th
ULEZIKNEY YISRAEL (9:1) = on the 8 day, Moshe summoned Aaron, his sons and
the elders of Israel. Some Rabbinic authorities think these Eldersan early form of the
Sanhedrinwas called because they had the sole power to appoint the High Priest.
However, Torah strongly implies that Abba YHWH appointed Aaron directly. More than
likely, the Elders had to be consulted in these critical matters so they could carry the
word back to the rest of the nation.
Rashi explains that Moshe did not take down the Tabernacle at the end of the first day, so
it was up at the start of day 2, but then dismantled and reassembled it at the start and end
of the remaining days. While Rashi also explains the 8th day is referring to the
inauguration and not the day of the month, the reality is the Torah text makes it plain it is
both. The first day of ordination is in fact the same day Moshe put up the Tabernacle in
Exodus 40, though probably that first day began in the afternoon after Moshe put
everything up.
VAYOMER MOSHE EL-AHARON KRAV EL-HAMIZBEACH VAASEH ET-

5|Page

CHATATCHA VEET OLATECHA VECHAPER BAADCHA UVEAD HAAM

VECHAPER BAADAM KAASHER TSIVAH YAHWEH (9:7) = Moses then said to
Aaron, Come near the altar, and prepare your sin offering and burnt offering, thus
atoning for you and the people. Then prepare the peoples offering to atone for them as
Yahweh has commanded. I think this is a very useful moral lesson to draw from the
imagery here. First atone for yourself and then you can atone for others. Like Yshua
said, remove the blockage from your eye and then you may attempt to remove one from
your brothers eye.
VAYISHCHAT ET-HA-OLAH VA-YAMTSIYU BENEY AHARON ELAV ET-HAADAM VA-YIZREKEHU AL-HA-MIZBEACH SAVIV (9:12) = and he slaughtered the
burnt offer and the sons of Aaron passed the blood to him and he dashed the blood all
around the altar. Some translations will say the blood was dashed on all sides of the
altar but the word SAVIV indicates all around as the better reading. SAVIV always
designates a circle or sphere. However, it is acknowledged that on some occasions a
circle called SAVIV is within a square and a square can be within a circle.
VAYAKREV ET-KORBAN HAAM VAYIKACH ET-SEIR HA-CHATAT ASHER
LAAM VAYISHCHATEHU VAYACHATEHU KARISHOWN (9:15) = He brought
forth the peoples offering. He took the goat that was the peoples sin offering and
slaughtered it, preparing it as a sin offering, like the first one. The first one was the sin
offering Aaron offered for himself. If Aaron as high priest was truly and completely SetApart from all of Israel, we might expect that his procedure would be different than that
of the regular Israelite. The fact that it is the same process speaks against the idea of an
excessive elevation of the high priesthood beyond all human experience. True the priests
have a special calling and special access that others do not, but at the end of the day their
sin offerings are the same as everyone elses.
VAYISA AHARON ET-YADAV EL-HA-AM VA-YA-VARECHEM (9:22) = And
Aaron lifted up his hands and blessed the people. The commandment to do so is given in
Numbers 6:22-27, which is before the Israelites left Mount Sinai in Numbers 10 and
synchronizing with Leviticus 27:34 that every commandment in that book was given at
the 2 years they were at Mount Sinai. Therefore the priestly benediction could only have
been composed after Year 1 ended in Exodus 40 but before Year 2 concluded.
VATETSE-ESH MI-LIFNEY YAHWEH (9:24) = and fire came from before the Face of
Yahweh, which is to say that the fire came down from heaven to totally consume the
offering. This is exactly how Eliyahus offering to Abba YHWH is dealt with before the
false prophets of Baal. One can also infer that this fire is not exactly normal, because in
Eliyahus case it was able to consume wood that was completely drenched in water.
VAYIKCHU VENEY-AHARON NADAB VAABIHU ISH MACHTATO VAYITNU
VEHEN SESH VAYASIMU ALEYHA KETORET VAYAKRIVU LIFNEY YAHWEH
ESH ZARA ASHER LO TSIVAH OTAM (10:1) = Aarons sons Nadab and Abihu each
took his fire pan, placed fire on it and then incense. They offered it before Yahweh as
strange fire which He had not instructed them to offer.
6|Page

One Rabbinic opinion is interesting in that they supposed this was the PREVIOUS
procedurei.e. one done by the Patriarchs before Moshethat they reverted to.
However, because the details of Patriarchal ritual are sketchy, there is no way to know
what the actual offense was. Others supposed they were drunk and simply had no
respect for their office. My personal opinion is that they wanted to have status apart
from Abba YHWH and simply offered fire up on a day and time He didnt sanction.
That would be very interesting if true, because other sources think they died on Yom
Kippur!
However, my recent research contradicts this tradition. I believe Nadab and Abihu died
on 8 Abib, and at that time the tribes were still offering their contributions for the
Tabernacle in Numbers 7. On that day, Manasseh gave his offering (Numbers 7:54) and
since Manasseh as we have seen means causing to forget Nadab and Abihu forgot
to follow Torah here.
The other piece of evidence that we have on this matter is the fact that the instructions
regarding priests not being drunk coincide exactly with the event of Aarons sons dying,
making me believe that the instruction was a reaction to their bad behavior in that
regard.
Josephus though believed that Nadab and Abihu sinned by offering sacrifices along the
lines of the patriarchs instead of what Moshe commanded:
For whereas [Aaron] had four sons, as I said before, the two older of them, Nadab
and Abihu, did not bring those sacrifices which Moses bade them bring, but
which they used to offer formerly, and were burnt to death. Now when the fire
rushed upon them, and began to burn them, no one could quench it. Accordingly
they died in this manner. And Moses bade their father and their brethren to take
up their bodies, to carry them out of the camp, and to bury them magnificently.
Now the multitude lamented them, and were deeply affected at their death, which
so unexpectedly befell them. (Antiquities, 3:209-210)
Finally, I believe the most likely explanation is the simplest in this case. It seems that,
per instructions in Exodus 29, that first sin offering at ordination was ONLY supposed
to be offered by Aaron on behalf of his sons, but instead they followed after him when
such was not allowed. It was fine for the sons to present offerings for the people of
Israel, but not specifically for their own final ordination (Exodus 29:20-34).
(Exo 29:35) And so you shall do to Aharon and his sons, according to all I have
commanded you. Seven days you shall ordain them, (Exo 29:36) and prepare
a bull each day as a sin offering for atonement. And you shall cleanse the altar
when you make atonement for it, and you shall anoint it to set it apart. (Exo
29:37) For seven days you shall make atonement for the altar, and set it apart.

7|Page

And the altar shall be most set-apart whatever touches the altar is to be set-apart.
(The Scriptures 1998)
And so I think that Nadab and Abihu thought they could follow up with their own
ordination offering on the 8th day, and this was a violation either because there was
no such extra ordination offering intended for that day or, if there was, it could only
be done by Moshe or Aaron. Either way, it was unauthorized and earned them death.
MISHAEL...ELZAPHANUZZIEL (10:4) = These three names have very
interesting meanings. MishaelWho is what El is? ElzapahanEl has protected.
UzzielMy strength is El.
Sentence: Who is what El is (whom) El has protected (for) El is my strength!
Uzziel is the brother Amram (Exodus 6:18).
VAYOMER MOSHE EL-AHARON ULE-ELAZAR ULEITAMAR BANAV
RASHEYCHEM (10:6) = Moshe said to Aaron and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar: Do
not bare your heads/go without a haircut. Rabbinic opinion seems very united on the
general principle that priests could not let their hair grow free for more than a month.
Other details though are in dispute.
UMIPETACH OHEL MOED LO TETSUPEN-TAMATU KI-SHEMEN MISHCHAT
YAHWEH ALEYCHEM (10:7) = Do not leave the entrance of the Tent of Meeting lest
you die, because YHWHs anointing oil is still upon you. Some rabbis think the use of
anointing oil would therefore prevent all future generations of priests from leaving the
Tabernacle or Temple even to mourn immediate family. Others think this was a harsh
lesson for Aarons surviving sonsthat they had to focus on their duties so they did not
fall into the sin of their dead brothers.
YAYIN VE-SHAKAR AL-TESHT ATAH U-VANEYCHA (10:9) = Wine or other
strong drink neither you nor your descendants may partake of. That is, to the degree that
you become drunk or impaired as many authorities believe. Others suggest that this was a
direct response to Nadab and Abihus deaths, giving rise to the belief that perhaps they
were drunk at the time they died, but there is no direct evidence for such an assertion.
ULEHOROT ET-BENEY YISRAEL ET-KOL HA-CHUKIM (10:11) = you will
therefore be able to render decisions for the children of Israel. This is a specific command
that, in context with the train of thought from the start of chapter 10, forbids drunkenness
for any Jewish authority when rendering a halachic judgment. The interesting thing is
these CHUKUM (enactments, prescriptions) are also said to be based on DIBER
YAHWEH ALEYHEM BEYAD MOSHE, or the words that Abba YHWH has taught
you through the hand of Moshe. This means there should be no distinction between the
decisions made by the elders and what was written in the Torah. It is not a command to
set up a separate oral-based infrastructure but rather to apply the law that was already
written down. It is true however that the WORDS were spoken first, but other places in
the Torah tell us Moshe wrote down all the words of YHWH in a book.
8|Page

VAYADABER YAHWEH EL-MOSHE VEEL-AHARON LEMOR ALEHEM (11:1) =

and Yahweh spoke to Moshe and to Aaron telling them
This series of instructions is meant to explain the seemingly out of nowhere prohibition
of Leviticus 7:21 that talks about not touching clean and unclean carcasses. Of course
Noah also could tell the difference between clean and unclean animals, indicating that
Sinai was not the introduction of the kosher laws but the RE-introduction of them since
they were captives in Egypt. The ancient Egyptians, as we saw with Joseph and Moshe,
hated sheep, which was a staple of the Hebrew diet, so it is not unreasonable to suppose
that the kosher laws that Noah and Abraham lived by got lost by the wayside while the
Israelites were in Egyptian bondage. And so it is now, 120 years after that bondage
began, that these laws are now being re-issued for a new generation.
Special Note on Leviticus 10:16-20:
This is an extremely interesting exchange. Moshe is angry because Aaron and his
remaining sons (though Moshe only directs his rebuke to those sons and not to his
brother), did not avail themselves of the wonderful opportunity to enjoy Set-apart
delicacies that were meant only for them; delicacies also that no common Israelite may
ever partake of. To Moshe, this is a lost opportunity and a failure of the new priests to
sanctify themselves as quickly as possible after a tragedy in their ranks.
However, Aaron brings up a point that Moshe did not consider. He points out that his
sons did do the sun and burnt offerings as described, but in spite of that, a terrible tragedy
occurred to Aaron with the loss of two sons in a single day. Aaron then suggests, but does
not directly state, that the failure of his two dead sons rests squarely on his shoulders as a
parent, and he couldnt guide them to be good sons or good priests.
As a result, with that failure on Aarons conscience, his point is he cannot eat of the sin
and burnt offering as a high priest because his failure as a parent rendered him unclean
and unworthy, and to eat of the most Set-apart meat when such judgment had just
befallen him would have been an act of egotistical defiance. Moshe agreed and dropped
the matter.
VEET HA-SHAPHAN (11:5) = and of the hyrax (or daman). This is one of the most
mysterious animals to be prohibited as un-kosher. Some would translate the word as
rock badger and others rabbit, but it seems to have been a local creature to the
Negev, as bible.ort.org explains:
Hyrax syriacus or Procavia capens syriaca. Shafan in Hebrew; chiorogryllios in
Greek, (Septuagint); tafan in Arabic. The hyrax is a small mammal, around 20
inches long, living in the Negev mountains. It has short feet, covered with elastic,
a flexible tail-less body, and pads. It nests in the clefts of rocks (Psalms 104:18),
and lives in small groups (Proverbs 30:26). Since it has a maw like a ruminant, it
is considered to 'bring up its cud.'
9|Page

ARNEVETH (11:7) = another more general species of rabbit that is also un-kosher.
ACH MAYAN UVOR MIKVEH MAYIM (11:36) = a spring or a cistern collecting
water shall be clean. The word to collect is MIKVEH, from where we get immersionbaptism. The first MIKVEH however was in Genesis 1:9 when the waters above the
firmament were gathered into one place!
Bonus Linguistics
QATAR and KETER = We saw previously that sometimes the substitution of two
letters that sound alike lead to deeper relationships between words. Example: alephwaw-resh (AUR) is light but substitute with an AYIN as the first letter and it
means blind. In this case though TWO letters are substituted with similar sounds.
QATAR (smoke) is spelled qoph-teth-resh whereas KETER (crown) is spelled kaphtaw-resh. To my mind this is a hint that to do these sacrifices correctly, to have them
accepted by Abba YHWH as SMOKE leads to being given a CROWN of
righteousness. To me this imagery makes perfect sense because the sacrifice itself
goes through a transformation from one form to another, literally to be TURNED
INTO SMOKE in the Hebrew and therefore it is CHANGED into a CROWN, our
reward!
KAVOD (glory) = Very special word! It can mean or suggest shining or
renown. Abba YHWHs very name is said to be a name of KAVOD (Ps.
72:19) which then fills the entire earth. Most interesting though is the reference
that KAVOD is where Mashiyach rests (Isaiah 11:10). The Aramaic cognate,
SHUBKHA, is used in the NT to designate that the Son came from the same
GLORY and resting place of the Father (John 1:14).
ZUR (strange as in strange fire in 10:1) = literally does mean foreign in
Hebrew. It is strange because it was fire NOT commanded by Abba YHWH!
Therefore, even fire can be sinful is a sense. If we offer our fire where it is not
commanded, we become strangers as well, and these two strangers died, so we
better be careful!
SHEKAR (strong drink) = can also mean drunkenness as a verb and also to lie.
We saw this in the Secret of the 50 Names teaching about the place (Sychar
=Shekar) that means Liar Town where, not surprisingly, Yshua encounters liars.
The linkage though is also intended between getting drunk and being prone to
deceit because of that alcohol abuse.
YARA (teach) = technically derived from a root that means to bring out, bring
forth or even to hurl, throw. Its as if the teaching were a physical thing that
needed to be brought out, made to appear, and spread out before Israel! It is also
from where we get descriptions of the moon (yareach) which had been brought
forth and also the city of Jericho derived from that word for the moon. Of course we
10 | P a g e

also know well that YARA has a synonym SHALIA (to send out, teach) from
which we get SHLICHIM (apostles)!
END PART 1

11 | P a g e

PART 2: THE HAFTORAH

Bonus Teaching:
She Said Dont Hand Me No Swine and Keep Your Ham to Yourself
So this parsha we have one of the two chaptersDeuteronomy 14 is the other
onethat deals with the issue of kosher food in detail. And, as I write these words,
Pesach and the Feast of Unleavened Bread have just ended a few hours ago,
bringing to a close another situation where food restrictions are part of our faith
walk.
The issue of kosher food looms large in our movement, but what is interesting about
the different interpretations I have found is that everyone still agrees to avoid the
food that Father Yah has prohibited, but there seems quite a diversity of ideas about
how to accomplish this.
For some, the answer is to go completely rabbinic and become what we call glatt
kosher. Some say this is a way to be in unity with our Jewish brothers and sisters.
Others will point out that the rabbinic standards are so much more stringent than
what Scripture appears to dictate that at least if we go with the rabbinic higher
standard we are in no danger of breaking the Torah laws.
Still others want to kind of make their own kosher list, usually to add things that are
not typically on the Scripture no-no list. For example, because mushrooms grow
underground some folks believe they are excluded as food because only above
ground plants, trees, fruits and vegetables are mentioned. Others want to know if
since seed bearing fruits are talked about as being suitable to eat if that means
seedless varieties are un-kosher.
Also, whatever the wonderful benefits of the raw food program are (I have no doubt
about this) which is the diet of many a Hebrew Roots person, no one can get past
the fact that Torah requires roasted lambmeaning thoroughly cooked red meat
for the seder. And still some will say that is only for a lamb ritually sacrificed, not
one bought at the supermarket, and on we go to the next issue.
To be sure, there are tons and tons of opinions out there, and I cant possibly do
justice to every clean/unclean food question imaginable, knowing someone out
there is bound to think of something I never considered before. So instead, I hope
to make a few small suggestions for guidelines in these areas and ask that all of you
who have an interest in this topic pray over what I am saying, search the Scriptures
also, and see if what I am suggesting makes sense. And I say this advance: You do
not have to agree with my conclusions either. With those thoughts in mind, let us
proceed:
1) Does Genesis 1:29-31 prove that all food is really clean after all?

12 | P a g e

This is a typical Christian argument, which is usually augmented with Mark 7:19,
which says in some translations, Thus Yshua declared all foods clean. I will deal
with both situations.
First, lets quote Genesis 1:29-31:
And Elohim said, See, I have given you every plant that yields seed which is on
the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed, to you it is for
food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to
every creeping creature on the earth, in which there is life, every green plant is
for food. And it came to be so. And Elohim saw all that He had made, and see, it
was very good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, the sixth
day. (The Scriptures 1998)
So does that mean piggies and crabbies are kosher? Hardly! The key to understanding
why is two-fold:
First, we must accept testimony in Tanakh which is certified by Messiah Yshua that
Moshe is the author of Genesis through Deuteronomy. That being the case, I cannot
imagine that Moshe would write one thing in Genesis and then contradict that very
concept outright in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.
Instead, and this is my second point, what I think happened was that Moshe indicates a
concept of pure and unclean animals, at least by implication, as early as Noahs time.
Noah could tell the difference between clean and unclean animals and he was called
righteous and complete in his generation. Therefore, Noahs understanding of what is
clean and what is unclean likely did not originate with him; the standard had been in
place well before his time.
While we cannot say for certain that the knowledge of clean and unclean went straight
back to Adam, it does seem rather likely that Father Yah revealed His will over time in
the intervening generations between Adam and Noah. In this way Moses is not
contradicting himself but simply recording the evolving information Father Yah is giving
the world.
And finally, Yshua did not declare all foods clean in the Aramaic manuscripts of the
Peshitta text which I believe in this instance contain the original reading.
2) Are seedless fruits, particularly those modified by man artificially, un kosher
because the original seeded ones were designed that way by Father Yah?
In this case I would say that variations WITHIN A SPECIES are kosher but combining
species is never kosher. In Genesis 1:12 the term used is min motzah which literally
means after their kinds/species, but within any species are variations that can arise
naturally AND be encouraged by man and one of these are fruits without seeds. From
what I could tell a golden delicious apple with seeds is the exact same species as a golden
13 | P a g e

delicious apple without seeds, and therefore the seedless variety is just as kosher as the
one with seeds because the Hebrew itself tells us variations exist in the same species.
But if we cross breed clearly different fruits, like crossing an apple with a banana for
example, that is UN kosher and is beyond the after their kinds definition.
3) Are mushrooms un-kosher because they do not grow above the ground?
I agree with the Chabad and mainline Orthodox that mushrooms ARE kosher. Fungi are
kosher but they must be thoroughly cleaned because the insects that feed on mushrooms
are NOT kosher.
4) Should we simply then follow the rabbinic standard and be done with the issue?
My answer is NO, although I admit the rabbis have very thorough procedures for making
sure the blood is completely removed from meat, and I support that extra care for that
procedure. However, other rabbinic rules are NOT Scriptural, such as the milk with meat
prohibition, and we have gone over that before. So while it is fine to look to the rabbis for
some general guidance they are not right on everything.
And this brings us to
5) What should we, as Hebrew Roots believers, do with regards to the kosher rules?
My answer is that if the rule is clear in Torah, follow it. If you find the rabbinic procedure
is both practical and effective to deal with the Torah rule, do it. But if it is extreme (two
sets of dishes, no milk with meat within 6 hours or at the same time, etc.) do NOT do it.
If it cannot be established at least in its general process through Torah then chances are
what you are looking at is just the tradition of men, but I also know saying things
generally wont prevent all future questions.
To that end, if you find yourself wondering if something is really kosher, I will try and
help when I am able to respond which of course is not always immediately. But perhaps
we can overall find the answers together.
In the meantime, heres a more fun way to think about such things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3neOBojs9U
(Haftorah) Question of the Week:
Why did Abba YHWH get angry at Uzza when all he was trying to do was keep the
Ark steady and safe?
Answer: The oxen wouldnt have nearly upset the cart had the people drawing that cart
been more careful. The prohibition against common folk touching the Ark was well
known and therefore required greater caution when going downhill. If someone like
14 | P a g e

Uzza who was part of this procession that thought they could rush through it, they
literally took their lives into their hands. Or, Uzza could have tried steadying the cart
rather than touch the Ark. If by some happenstance the Ark fell, one can only imagine
that Abba YHWH would protect it either from hitting the ground or suffering damage
even if it did hit the ground. So the irreverence was the overly casual attitude which
put the entire procession at risk, as well as the Ark. Contrast this treatment also with the
next time the Ark is moved. That group is so careful, that they make a sacrifice of
thanksgiving having successfully moved it only 6 paces forward! Finally, they all could
have avoided any problem if Uzza and company simply asked the priests to carry the Ark
off of their property.
1) Haftorah portion (English- 2 Samuel 6:1-7:17) and discuss common themes with
the Torah portion.
2) Our linguistic commentary
enthroned above the cherubim = This phrase is always associated with the Ark of
the Covenant, appears about two dozen times with the Ark directly mentioned
because of the mercy seat having the cherubims wings reaching out with Abba
YHWH supposedly dwelling in between the gap. There is only ONE time when this
phrase appears and the Ark is not mentioned directly, and thats in 2 Kings 19:15
when Hezekiah prays for deliverance from the Assyrian 185,000 strong army
invading Israel. He certainly gets that deliverance in Ark-like fashion, meaning it
still had to be there at the time of that invasion in 700 BCE!
house of Abinadab = in addition to being a proper name, means in Hebrew my
father is noblevery appropriate considering the Ark is housed there!
NATAH (stretched out) = We saw this last week with the meaning of incline your
ear/listen. Here is its other meaning, to stretch out a tent. In this case though the tent
is stretched out due to HEARING the commandments of YHWH!
RAAH (shepherd, one who feeds) = In 2 Samuel 7:8 "Now therefore, thus you shall
say to My servant David, 'Thus says YHWH of hosts, "I took you from the pasture,
from following the sheep, to be ruler over My people Israel.
Notice that David is TAKEN from being a shepherd in order to lead. The shepherd is
actually following after the sheep as if to suggest he isnt even really in charge of
thema humbling image indeed for those who think shepherds are always in high
authority as pastors!
3) Renewed Covenant portion: (English) Mark 7:1-23 (all the way through with
applicable footnotes.)
4) Highlight common themes in Aramaic:

15 | P a g e

7:3- MESHELMANOTA DQASHISHEH (traditions of the elders) = Yshua is

asked why his disciples dont walk (halakh) according tonot the Torahbut the
TRADITIONS of the elders or Oral Law. Whats interesting about the Aramaic
though is it is NOT a cognate of what we might expect in HebrewMEZORA
(traditions). Instead, the word MESHELMANOTA (literally completions) is
derived from the root that means to fill up, perfect, complete, so what this is
actually saying is that the traditions complete the Torah, as if to suggest Torah by
it was incomplete. In Hebrew, these things become a technical term, TAKANOT
(literally, repairs) meant to FIX the Word.
7:5-The term QASHISHA or elders is a nice term for rabbis used because they
know Yshua will chide them for being great ones (Matthew 23:8).
7:7-YULPANEH DPOQDANEH DBANAY ANASHA (teachings of the
commandments of the son of men) = Very strong language indicating the traditions
Yshua is talking about in this instance have NO BASIS in Scripture even though other
practices of the Pharisees clearly do (Matthew 23:1). This is the opposite actually of
what Rav Shaul says about his own assembly. Whereas here Yshua says they
ABANDONED Torah to REPLACE it with un-scriptural traditions, in Romans 3:31
Rav Shaul says, Do we nullify the Torah by faith? Never! We ESTABLISH the
Torah! The same word for ESTABLISH in Romans 3:31 is used here to
ESTABLISH traditions instead of Torah. Thats tough love folks!
Also should point out that the root of establish is QM, from which we get
QUM/QUMI (arise) and QYAM (resurrection)! In fact resurrection day in Aramaic is
called QYAMTEH DMARAN (resurrection of our Master) by the Church of the
East.
7:8-9- Yshua still turns the discussion back from elders to rabbis with the
contrasting of the SINGULAR Commandment of Elohim (POQDANA DALAHA)
being left behind for the PLURAL commandments of men again with the Aramaic
term for TAKANOT (MESHELMANOTA).
7:9, 16- HEAR ME/HE WHO HAS EARS LET HIM HEAR = again SHEMA means
also to do, perform so Yshua is issuing a COMMAND not a plea to the Pharisees.
Mark 7:19
29) This chapter showcases one of the greatest discussions of oral versus written
Jewish law that exists in these writings of the Renewed Covenant. In many ways this
presages the heated exchanges that would be recorded in the Talmud some 200 years
later. However, a major misunderstanding of this verse found its way into the modern
translations with the parenthetical comment "in so doing Y'shua declared all foods
clean." It does not occur in any Aramaic mss or in early Greek manuscripts,
apparently an attempt was made by Gentile or Christian editors to abandon Torah's
dietary laws. The point being established is that if you plot things like murder, lies,
adulteries and so forth, then why be concerned about the food you eat, when
16 | P a g e

weightier things are making you much more unclean than your food? Even if a
person kept a perfectly kosher diet, but had such unclean thoughts, such a one would
rank among the most unkosher of people. See Luk_11:40.
7:21- LEBA DBANAY ANASHA = heart of the sons of men. Yshua did not have
to use this precise phrase but did so to make a very cutting insult. LEBA DBANAY,
heart of the sons, can also remind them of the converse, SONS OF THE HEART, or
in Hebrew LEVI (my heart, so sons of the heart, LEVITES), so this is a clear shot
against the power of the priests and Levites and look what he says comes out of those
hearts!
Mark 7:21
30) The most imperative difference between religious duty and True Faith has to do
with always steering the intentions of our hearts towards righteous Set Apart conduct.
The Hebrew word for intention is kavanah. Yshua teaches us that the kavanah of
our heart is the nature of our soul, whether it is carnal or transformed (redeemed)
according to righteousness. From inside the heart our kavanah (intentions)
manifest as thoughts that turn into words, and then to actions. We have an inner
voice telling us what to think about ourselves, others, life, our Creator, the Word and
everything else. The empowerment to overcome bad habits, inconsistencies,
weaknesses, failings, insecurities, religiosity, sin, procrastination etc., is what Yshua
offers to all who will bear my yoke upon you (Mat_11:29). Through his many
teachings, examples and parables on kavanah, Yshua concretely established the
imperative of kavanah (intentions of the heart) as the foundation of true Jewish
spirituality. Regrettably, modern religions have replaced this vital necessity of
kavanah with things like theology, doctrine, statements of faith, meditation, works,
tradition, and religious identity, yet there are no substitutes for righteous kavanah and
obedience to the Word of YHWH. For the mouth speaks from the fullness of the
heart (Mat_12:34).
1) Apply these themes/issues to modern issues in the Netzari faith. (Understanding
what strangled meat meant in the book of Acts, how it related to the early
believers and how it relates to Biblical vs glatt kosher today. The core
requirement: Drain the blood from the animal and pour it on the ground!)
2) Relate to all or part of an Appendix portion of AENT or footnotes from a portion.
(Unity vs. Hierarchy, p. 1008-1010)
STUDY QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED NEXT WEEK FOR THIS
PORTION:
1) Why does the prophet Nathan appear to jump the gun and get a little overly
zealous?

17 | P a g e

2) If Genesis 49:11 and the scepter will not depart from Judah is in fact a prophecy
that only Judah can sit on the throne of Israel, why did Abba YHWH allow the
first king (Saul) to be from Benjamin?
3) Was Saul doomed to failure because he was of the wrong tribe or did he bring
disaster upon himself?
4) How is the name of one of Davids sons foretold in 2 Samuel 7:11-12 through
words that are SYNONYMS to the real name?
5) In this portion two sons of Aaron die for disobeying Abba YHWH. But my
question is, how did Abba YHWH also punish the two surviving sons and why,
when they had not disobeyed?
Torah Thought for the Week:
From Michael to Michal Revisited and Expanded
In our Haftorah portion we found a line in 2 Samuel 6:16 that Michal the daughter of
Saul despised (David) in her heart, but even though the Scripture attempts to explain
why, it seems there is a lot more to it than meets the eye. Here is how the Scripture
relates the story:
20

But when David returned to bless his household, Michal the daughter of Saul
came out to meet David and said, "How the king of Israel distinguished himself
today! He uncovered himself today in the eyes of his servants' maids as one of the
foolish ones shamelessly uncovers himself!" 21 So David said to Michal, "It was
before YHWH, who chose me above your father and above his entire house, to
appoint me ruler over the people of YHWH, over Israel; therefore I will celebrate
before YHWH. 22 "I will be more lightly esteemed than this and will be humble
in my own eyes, but with the maids of whom you have spoken, with them I will
be distinguished." 23 Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her
death. (2 Samuel 6:20-23)
Here it seems the Michal is worried about Davids imageperhaps for his own good?
She accuses himsuperficially at leastof debasing his office, or of appearing too
informal before the people. But if this is the case, why the last line? Why would this
argument mean they would be forever estranged due to this small incident on Davids
part? After all, if she never had children, that really means David and Michal never came
together as man and wife, and we know David was not exactly lacking in acting on
desires for the fairer sex so clearly there had to be another issue.
Before proceeding further, lets talk for a moment though about her name. Michal is
the female equivalent of Michael, which means in Hebrew Who is like unto You, O El
(YHWHsee Exodus 15:1-2). In its full form it is an affirmation of faith in YHWH as
the only Judge for our lives. But in this case, Michal the woman has degraded that
purpose; in effect shut her eyes to YHWHs will!
18 | P a g e

What starts out then as Michal saying she is concerned about Davids image really then
seems more about her concern about how she appears in the eyes of the people as the
wife of such a common acting kind of king! However, this isnt the full explanation
either. Again, one would expect Michal to be concerned about both her image and her
husbands, but to never reconcile because of this one point? Even if she is right that
Davids behavior was not in high decorum, again, why the extreme penalty from both
him to her and her to him?
The real problemthe heart of the matteris that she is the daughter of King Saul. She
knows David married her in part to consolidate his own power base. In her mind, her
father was the rightful king and her brother Jonathan was supposed to rule after him, until
some upstart shepherd from East Nowhere came to take it all away. Now both her father
and brother are dead and even though Scripture goes to great lengths to say David had
nothing to do with either death, the Scripture also comes close to admitting many people
thought David culpable anyway. In other words, David was tried and found guilty in the
court of public opinion.
And now, because she is stuck with him, the last thing she needs to see is David
proving (in her mind) how UN-kingly he is dancing like a court jester before the Ark.
Here we have the most precious object in the whole world that was kept under the careful
stewardship of her father Saul and David treats it like its a party favor, like they were
going to play a game of pin the tail on the Ark. This kind of hatred only comes about
because Michal thinks David has no right to be king.
But it masquerades as other things: Concern, requesting decorum and preserving a good
public image. This hatred tries to pretend to have a benevolent face. But stop judging by
appearances as Yshua said, and make a right judgment!
The root of this hatred though, dark as it is, is even darker in Michals mind. This hatred
stems not really from rage at David although that is genuine, but rebellion against
YHWH. Remember what David says
It was before YHWH, who chose me above your father and above all his house, to
appoint me ruler over the people of YHWH, over Israel; therefore I will celebrate
before YHWH.
To Michal, this is in effect like throwing it back in her face. How dare he rub it in like
that? Her father is dead because of David! Her brother isnt king and destroyed because
of David! Then David dances casually before the Ark and says its Abba YHWHs will?
Shameful!
Unlessit IS Abba YHWHs will that David be king and it IS Abba YHWHs will that
he show joy that way in front of the people! Thats the part Michal cannot accepther
grief simply will not allow that as a possibility in her mind.

19 | P a g e

We should also remember that Davids name here means beloved and he is only person
in all of Scripture with that name. But the last thing Michal wants is to think of David as
living up to his name but there he is cavorting with servants when he should be begging
her for forgiveness since he, of course, is responsible for all her problems!
Never mind, of course, that Saul had ample opportunities to follow Abba YHWH and
spurned the counsel of Samuel the priest twice. Never mind that Saul raised the dead
perversion!to try and un-do Abba YHWHs judgment against him. In effect Michal
ends up being just like her father. She is stubborn and fails to see the ramifications of her
own mistakes. Its everyone elses fault. My father SHOULD be king, and its easier to
blame David than for me to admit that Saul did evil in the sight of Abba YHWH!
So, the next time you feel very angry at someone close to you, ask yourself if you should
be that way or if you are taking the promise of MICHA MOCHA EL (Who is like unto
You, YHWH) and turning yourself instead into MICHAL, who judges others rather than
accepting the judgment of the Master.
On the other hand, since I originally wrote this, I slowly began to see things a bit more
from Michals perspective, not to totally give her a pass but to put her behavior in a fair
context of the feelings she had. I actually began looking at her side of the story when I
was doing a TV program on human relationships in the Scripture, and now I am ready to
think this whole idea all over again
The Long Shadow of Saul
The headline may read SAUL IS DEAD, LONG LIVE KING DAVID, but the heartache
and hardships for him are just beginning. Sauls memory and legacy will haunt David for
the rest of his life, in spite of the fact that David did all he could to support him to the
bitter end. The loss of Jonathan cannot be calculated.
In theory though at least, the best of Saul could have been thought as having been
continued through his daughter and Davids first wife, Michal. Michal enters the stage of
history with great purity and sweetness and a practical toughness making her more than a
match for David. On paper it seems a power couple has been born.
David had also married Ahinoam of Jezreel and he kept [her and Abigail] both as
wives. Saul had given his daughter Michal, David's wife, to Palti son of Laish,
from Gallim. (1 Samuel 25:43-44 NJB)
We will deal with Abigail another time. For now, lets focus on this short but very
insightful passage of Scripture. Michal has clearly loved and protected David for years,
even at the expense of straining her relationship with her own father. Saul though comes
to rescue her honor beautifully here! Saul will not even let a man like David turn his
daughter into a second class wife! It actually is one of the most righteous things Saul has
ever done. He finds for her a man who will cherish and take care of her as the main and

20 | P a g e

only wife. We can only surmise this soothes her heart for a while. Too bad David wont
let go
This is what took place during the war between the House of Saul and the House
of David. Abner took complete control in the House of Saul. Now, there was a
concubine of Saul's called Rizpah daughter of Aiah, and Abner took her.
Ishbaal said to Abner, 'Why have you slept with my father's concubine?' At these
words of Ishbaal, Abner flew into a rage. 'Am I a dog's head?' he shouted. 'Here
am I, full of faithful love towards the House of Saul your father, his brothers and
his friends, not leaving you to the hands of David, and now you find fault with me
over a woman! May God bring un-nameable ills on Abner, and worse ones, too, if
I do not bring about what Yahweh has sworn to David: to take the sovereignty
from the House of Saul, and establish David's throne over Israel as well as Judah,
from Dan to Beersheba!'
Ishbaal dared not say a single word to Abner in reply, as he was afraid of him.
Abner sent messengers on his own behalf to say to David, Come to an agreement
with me and I will give you my support to win all Israel over to you.' 'Very well,'
David said, 'I will come to an agreement with you. I impose one condition
however; you will not be admitted to my presence unless you bring me
Michal, Saul's daughter, when you come to see me.' David then sent
messengers to say to Ishbaal son of Saul, 'Give me back my wife Michal, whom I
acquired for a So Ishbaal sent for her to be taken from her husband Paltiel son of
Laish. Her husband set off with her and followed her, weeping as he went, as far
as Bahurim; but Abner said to him, 'Go back!' and he went. Now Abner conferred
with the elders of Israel. 'For a long time now,' he said, 'you have wanted David as
your king. Now you must take action, since Yahweh has said of David, "By the
hand of my servant David I shall deliver my people Israel from the clutches of the
Philistines and all their enemies." ' (2 Samuel 3:6-18 NJB)
So whereas before Michal did all she could for her man David, now her father and
brother are dead as a direct result of Davids rise to power, though he was not involved in
their deaths. Her father had made things right by giving her to a man who truly loved
herhe is weeping publicly at her lossand now she is a helpless political pawn again.
David comes and rips her away from her happy home. To make matters worse, Davids
motives for doing so are ambiguous at best. Could it be that he still loves Michal?
Perhaps but it didnt stop him from marrying two other women for strategic purposes.
Michal may understand, but she doesnt like it. Then David demands her back like
property stolen from him without a word about his feelings for her.
More than that, everything David does can also be explained in terms of politics against
her fathers house, thus defiling the memory of her father and brother in her mind. Given
this, what happens next is not shocking

21 | P a g e

Now as the ark of Yahweh entered the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul
was watching from the window and when she saw King David leaping and
whirling round before Yahweh, the sight of him filled her with contempt. They
brought the ark of Yahweh in and put it in position, inside the tent which David
had erected for it; and David presented burnt offerings and communion sacrifices
in Yahweh's presence. And when David had finished presenting burnt offerings,
he blessed the people in the name of Yahweh Sabaoth. To all the people, to the
whole multitude of Israelites, men and women, he then distributed to each a loaf
of bread, a portion of dates and a raisin cake. Then the people all went back to
their homes.
As David was coming back to bless his household, Michal daughter of Saul came
out to meet him. 'Much honor the king of Israel has won today,' she said, 'making
an exhibition of himself under the eyes of his servant-maids, making an exhibition
of himself like a buffoon!'
David replied to Michal, 'I was dancing for Yahweh, not for them. As Yahweh
lives, who chose me in preference to your father and his whole family to make me
leader of Israel, Yahweh's people, I shall dance before Yahweh and lower myself
even further than that. In your eyes I may be base, but by the maids you speak of,
by them, I shall be held in honor!' And to the day of her death, Michal, daughter
of Saul, had no children. (2 Samuel 6:16-23 NJB)
Way to win her heart back David! Hey, not your fault YHWH cursed her whole family
and such a nice way to put it to her! With apologies like that, who needs the actual
offenses? And this is some costly argumentthey will never consummate the
relationship. She dies a broken woman. Moving on
A Special Kind of Feeling
There is another dimension in David and Michals relationship that needs exploring. The
Hebrew text is very specific about the kind of feelings Michal ends up having for David,
and we need to go very deep into that word to really understand her emotional landscape.
So lets see this action again:
Now as the ark of Yahweh entered the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul was
watching from the window and when she saw King David leaping and whirling round
before Yahweh, the sight of him filled her with contempt. (2 Samuel 6:16 NJB)
Now lets see this word in all its dark glory
vb. despise (Pal. Targum , cf. baza raise the head loftily and disdainfully)
Brown Driver Briggs
There is more than one word in Hebrew for hatred. Some kinds of hatred are more
equal, such as in the sense of one business rival hating his number one competitor. But
22 | P a g e

this kind of hatred is special. Literally meaning to raise ones head in disdain, this is the
kind of hatred one has when they feel themselves very far above the object of their anger.
Its sort of like saying, I am perfect and you are lower than the dust. This can mean
only one thing: Michal must now be in a state that views David as an illegitimate king
who murdered the rightful monarch (her father) and his rightful heir (her brother).
And from this point, that feeling of Michal will gain strength with others who will forever
be trying to de-stabilize his throne. This brings us back where we started, The Long
Shadow of Saul. What Saul could not do in life others come much closer to succeeding
at after his death, to the degree that David knows little peace.
So maybe Michal can take some comfort now since she is not alone in her feelings and
she is not forgotten. It may also be easier to judge Michal through the eyes of what we
know about David, because of course he is the rightful king and innocent.
But back then, except to David, Samuel and Abba YHWH, this was not clear to anyone
else! So lets look at Michal through the prism of her own life experiences and be very
careful how we judge her. I say this to remind myself of this fact more than as advice to
anyone else.
Im Andrew Gabriel Roth and thats your Torah Thought for the Week!
Next week, we will be exploring Tazria, or Leviticus 12:1 13:59. Our Haftorah portion
will be 2 Kings 4:42-5:19 and our Renewed Covenant portion will be Matthew 8:1-4 and
Luke 17:11-19. Stay tuned!

23 | P a g e